Exploring the Topography of the Authoritarian: Populism, Illiberalism, and Authoritarianism

Abstract

“Democratic regression,” the “retreat of western liberalism,” the “return” or “renaissance” of authoritarianism or the “third wave of autocratization” − these are some the many labels for diverse phenomena − or problems of authority − that plague societies in the Global North and South. Commonly, such problems of authority are specified as pathological practices of corruption or institutional defects, deviant forms of governance or pathological symptoms of representation and participation. Their semantic specification and interpretive framework are delivered by three camps − with contested, porous borders and considerable intersections and agreements − under the signifier illiberalism, populism or authoritarianism. All of them claim, each camp speaking from its peculiar vantage point, the authority to interpret the phenomena mentioned above. In this article the “properties” − advantages and failures − of the three frameworks are discussed and brought into a conversation with one another.

Distinctions With a Difference: Illiberalism and Authoritarianism in Scholarly Study

“…6. For an excellent castigation as well as the illustration of the evident conceptual muddle (also inclusive of populism), see Frankenberg (2022). 7.…”

“…For a graphical representation in peer-reviewed work on the subject, see Laruelle (2022: 3). The earliest reference to “authoritarianism” is likely in reference to the regime of Napoleon Bonaparte III’s presidential dictatorship of the 1850s, see Frankenberg (2022: 11). The term “illiberal,” of course, has an old history as a descriptor denoting something not-‘liberal’ in a general sense but is not used as a defined, scholarly concept or an “ism” until the twenty-first century.…”